On 6/6/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
OK, I understand your terminology. Of course,
then you should agree
that
every sentence of every article is a consensus
among everyone who has
read
that sentence. So that pretty much makes the
comment useless, doesn't
it?
That's the whole principle behind "stable versions". Once people stop
editing something, it means there is a consensus on it.
But surely you wouldn't apply you comment that "BOLD is not meant to be used
for going against established consensus" to that.
However, the
consensus derived from an active discussion (even if
people don't
comment) is stronger than the consensus derived from passive reading.
You don't look at an FAC request without thinking about whether it
would make a good FA, you do often read an article without thinking
about every sentence.
Agreed, a few people discussing something makes for a stronger consensus.
But once Tony came along, saw the result, and so vehemently disagreed with
it, that consensus was broken. At that point the notion of BOLD and
consensus decision making really take a back seat to the issue of how
Featured Articles in particular should be chosen. On that part of the
discussion I'm going to bow out, because I think the entire system of
choosing featured articles is completely broken, and has been for years.